So Whose Fault is it When Candidates Fudge on the Federal Budget?By Jean Johnson and Scott Bittle,
Authors of The Voter's Survival Kit, a series of election guides from PublicAgenda.org and the book Where Does the Money Go? Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis

You
may have the sneaking feeling that there's something the presidential
candidates aren't telling you about the federal budget. And you're
right. Here it is:

Every expert who looks at the federal budget uses the same word to
describe it: unsustainable. The federal government is $9.5 trillion in
debt already, and is projected to run a half-trillion dollar deficit
next year. Plus, there are huge expenses coming up as the baby boomers
retire and start needing help from Medicare and Social Security. If we
do nothing, the government simply won't be able to keep up with its
obligations -- which could mean higher taxes, cuts in programs and a
weaker economy for everyone.

You can see why someone running for president and eager to get every
vote he can get might want to slide over this ugly little reality as
quickly as possible. There's actually no way to solve the problem
without cutting spending on things people like, or raising taxes to
cover the coming expenses or most likely doing some of both. If you've
been following any of the campaigning so far, you can easily imagine
why Senators McCain and Obama aren't tackling this thing head on.

Unfortunately, what they're saying while they're out there soliciting
our votes is likely to put the country even deeper into debt. Political
campaigns want to talk about more for everybody. And right now, the
best independent analysis shows that the campaign promises coming from
both John McCain and Barack Obama would make the problem worse (but for
different reasons).

This isn't some hazy, far-off, inside-the-beltway problem. The next
president won't have any choice but to start dealing with this problem.
The first baby boomer started getting Social Security checks this year.
Medicare also dipped into its trust fund for the first time -- not for
very much, a "mere" $8 billion -- but it's the start of a disturbing
trend.

If the red ink keeps flowing and we don't make some reality-based
choices on the budget and Social Security and Medicare, we could
jeopardize the health of our economy and our standard of living. The
choices we make now will affect the amount of your paycheck, whether
you can get a college loan or home mortgage, whether interest rates are
high or low and whether older Americans (maybe that's you, or your
parents or grandparents) can make ends meet and get the medical care
they need.

If we do nothing, the country's debt will be growing faster than our
economy in about 15 years, which means we won't be able to keep up. By
2040, the U.S. would need nearly every dollar it collects in taxes just
to cover the costs of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest
on the debt.

But the pain will come long before 2040. Sometimes you'll hear
politicians talk about Social Security and Medicare "trust funds" that
will keep the programs running for years (until 2019 for Medicare and
2041 for Social Security). And that's true -- you really don't have to
worry about your Social Security check failing to show up.

The problem is that the federal government has already used most of the
money in the trust funds to keep its other operations running Instead
of having nest eggs to draw on, Medicare and Social Security basically
have IOUs from the government. And how will the government pay them? By
raising taxes, borrowing, or cutting other programs. The problem isn't
that people on Social Security won't get their checks, it's that the
rest of the government may go broke covering them.

That's what the candidates aren't telling you, And frankly, maybe it's
just as much our fault as theirs. When was the last time you voted for
a candidate because of his or her tough stand on balancing the budget
or frank talk about getting Social Security and Medicare spending under
control? Not lately? When was the last time you ruled someone out
because he or she dared to suggested cuts to Medicare or Social
Security, or dared talk about raising taxes, not cutting them?

Candidates and voters have both been dancing around the nation's budget
mess for years. Senators McCain and Obama are fudging the unpleasant
facts. Most of the electorate seems willing to reward the one who
weaves the most attractive tale.

To some extent, the next administration will be defined by money, or
lack of it to be more exact. All those shiny new programs and tempting
tax cuts the candidates are offering you need to be seen in that
context. Yes, you can still cut taxes, but you need to starting
whacking government programs left and right to pay for them. Or you can
start new programs -- but the money's going to have to come from
somewhere.

And you, the voter, ought to start thinking about what you really want
because, one way or another, you'll end up paying for it.

Author Bio
Jean Johnson and Scott Bittle are lead authors of The Voter's Survival Kit, a series of election guides from Public Agenda and the book Where Does the Money Go? Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis (HarperCollins, 2008). Public Agenda is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization devoted to helping citizens tackle tough issues. The Survival Kit is available at www.publicagenda.org.